Skip to comments.Cops Are Outraged That New York's New Magazine Limit Could Apply to Them
Posted on 01/21/2013 2:56:23 PM PST by neverdem
In my column this week, I asked why police officers should be allowed to have so-called high-capacity magazines if they have no defensive value. Since "no one needs" to fire more than X number of rounds before reloading (and assuming that "need" should define what people are allowed to possess), why not apply the same limit to everyone? It looks like the New York legislature, which this week reduced the state's magazine limit from 10 rounds to seven, did take an evenhanded approachbut only by accident. According to DNAinfo.com and WABC, the ABC station in New York, legislators were in such a rush to impose new gun restrictions that they forgot to exempt active-duty and retired law enforcement officers from the new magazine rule. Whoops.
Cops are complaining about the lack of a double standard:
"As a law enforcement officer for over 20 years, I understand the importance of instituting a new policy on mandating the limits of bullets that a regular citizen can possess, but as a matter of fact the bad guys are not going to follow this law," said Norman Seabrook, president of the correction officers union, the city's second largest.
"The way the current legislation is drafted, it actually handcuffs the law enforcement community from having the necessary ammunition needed to save lives," he said. "We must not allow this to happen."
Roy Richter, president of the Captains Endowment Association and a lawyer, said, "It puts retired officers in a position that the clip they were issued by the NYPD, carried for their careers and were fully trained on, is now considered contraband."
Michael J. Palladino, who is head of the NYPD's 6,000-member detectives union and president of the state's Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, which represents 50,000 members, joined in calling for Cuomo and the legislature to immediately amend the law.
"Gun reform must prevent criminals and the deranged from getting illegal weaponsnot restrict law-abiding retired cops from protecting themselves and the public," Palladino said.
"I support the governor in gun reform, however the new legislation restricts law enforcement officers who retire, and that could jeopardize the safety of the public."
DNAinfo.com calls the absence of a law-enforcement exemption a "loophole in the law," but in fact it is the very opposite of a loophole: Cops are outraged at the possibility that they might be treated the same as "a regular citizen" under the law. One has to wonder: If, as Seabrook says, the new magazine limit will have no impact on criminals and if, as Seabrook and Palladino agree, more than seven rounds sometimes are necessary to "save lives," what justification can there be for imposing this arbitrary restriction not just on "law-abiding retired cops" but on law-abiding citizens in general?
A spokesman for Gov. Andrew Cuomo told WABC, "We are still working out some details of the law, and the exemption will be included. Currently no police officer is in violation." I'm not sure why he says that, since the part of the law that bans pre-existing magazines holding more than 10 rounds is "effective immediately." According to WABC, "Nearly every law enforcement agency in the state carries handguns that have a 15-round capacity." The provision covering magazines that hold eight, nine, or 10 rounds takes effect on April 15. Contrary to what Richter says, such magazines won't actually be "contraband" for people who already have them, but their owners will be expected to put no more than seven rounds in them at a time. I am serious: That is what the law says. A prohibited "large capacity ammunition feeding device" is, among other things, a magazine legally obtained before April 15 that "contains more than seven rounds of ammunition."
It is implausible enough to suggest that a criminalwho by definition has no compunction about breaking the law, who is not legally permitted to possess firearms to begin with (if he has a felony record), and who is highly motivated to obtain the tools of his tradewould be deterred from obtaining a 10-round magazine by the legislature's new dictate, especially since plenty of them will remain in circulation. It is beyond fanciful to suppose that, having obtained a 10-round magazine, a criminal would think twice about putting more than seven rounds in it because legislators said he shouldn't. But in New York state, that whiff of a pretext suffices to abridge people's Second Amendment rights and, according to the cops clamoring for an exemption to the new limit, put lives at risk.
The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association says it is "actively working to enact changes to this law that will provide the appropriate exemptions from the law for active and retired law enforcement officers." State Sen. Eric Adams (D-Brooklyn), who is a former NYPD captain but nevertheless does not know which constitutional amendment protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures, told WABC he will introduce legislation restoring the double standard to which cops have become accustomed. "You can't give more ammo to the criminals," he explains. I thought that was the whole point of this law.
Cops can have magazines. They just can’t take them out of the station house and in the station house they have to be kept 50 yards away from any gun it fits in.
Criminals need not take off their shoes now.
In 2009 of a population of approximately 700,000 LEO's in the US there were 38 felonious murders, or 0.0054%. In 2009 with a population of 307,006,550, there were 15,399 murders with a 0.0050% chance of being murdered (when you minus out the LEO numbers). That is a four ten-thousandths of a percent more chance to be murdered than the rest of the citizens in the U.S. When you figure every one of those LEO's were armed, trained and have available backup, the citizens are less protected and even more so now if the gun grabbers get their way.
“Gun reform must prevent criminals and the deranged from getting illegal weaponsnot restrict law-abiding retired cops ...”
What about law abiding citizens? I guess we don’t count. Cops are more likely to be wife beaters, commit suicide, suffer from depression and PTSD than average citizens.
And the fun fact that everyone forgets about that shootout. Despite 650+ rounds fired by the bad guys through dreaded assault rifles, they wounded something like 18, and non of them died.
So much for the most lethal weapon imaginable.
Meanwhile, Senior Airman Andrew P. Brown, age 25, with the 92nd Air Force Security Police Squadron, was patrolling the bases housing areas on a bicycle when he received an emergency call on his two-way radio. He pedaled a quarter-mile to the scene and, while still some 70 yards away, spotted Mellberg shooting at scores of panic-stricken people in the parking lot.
He ditched his bicycle and ordered the gunman to drop his weapon. When Mellberg turned and shot at him, Brown dropped into a combat crouch and returned fire with his 9mm Beretta M9 semiautomatic pistol. He fired four rounds at Mellberg; two missed, one hit him in the shoulder and one struck him between the eyes, instantly ending his homicidal rampage. The drum magazine in Mellbergs MAK-90 still held 19 rounds of ammunition.”
LAPD didn’t have a weapon overmatch problem, they had a settle down and aim at the head problem.
You're no better than anyone else.
In my old days as a tank gunner, I had 63 rounds available for my primary weapon, which was essentially a single-shot semiautomatic. The secondary weapon was the coaxial .30 caliber or 7.62mm machinegun mounted coaxially with the main gun, and known thereby as the co-ax. For which we had 6000 rounds in the turret tray and an extra 4000 rounds in ammo cans for a reload.
Those old habits die hard. And in my case, haven't died out yet.
Another case proving unions are bands of useful idiots. If the ban of anything over 7 shots remains, then it should not have exceptions - it’s either a good idea or a bad one. Period.
4000 rounds - is that five cases?
Maybe cops just need more bullets to fire as they are lousy shots, contrary to popular and ignorant belief that cops are super hero gun slingers.
I always believed the time for reasoned debate and thoughtful consideration was before passing legislation. Unbelievable. What country is this, again?
Yeah, I know, we have to pass it to find out what's in it. This makes me sick.
NY cops used to walk a beat, alone, no radio, no call boxes, post Civil War with only a night stick. Such was the respect they had. Now, a hundred years of political ENFORCEMENT, they need armor and military weapons. From Peace officers to law( really ‘legalism’ ) en-FORCE-ment upon the sheeple. But, hey, you take the king’s coin, you do his bidding.
Spray 'n' Pray.
They had to pass the bill to see what was in it.
Ask Nancy, she’ll tell you all about those types of bills.
I’ll assume you aren’t one of those ‘regular civilians’ addressed in the article.
The cops don’t need them. There is absolutely no reason a cop needs any more armament than the average citizen. None at all.
Exemptions for LE in gun laws are Unconstitutional, immoral, and unjust.
Click here to visit the Oath Keepers Website - http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
The Oath Keepers are a good organization that many people need to take a look at. If its an idea you see as important as many of us do, then start spreading the group around and doing everything you can to help them raise money for their outreach campaigns. A group like the Oath Keepers can have a huge impact on our future. Everyone can do a part in getting a group like this out their among the many who would obviously be open to its rational Constitutional mainstream Ideals. Below is from the Oath Keepers Website OATHKEEPERS.ORG
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution
Our motto is Not on our watch!
Read complete description here - http://oathkeepers.org/oath/about/
*Even if you have never served in any of the above capacities, you are still welcome to participate in our outreach efforts and may join us as an Citizen Associate Member.
You DO NOT have to be prior service to join as an associate member. We encourage all patriotic, liberty loving Americans to join us and assist in our mission.
Donate to the Oath Keepers Billboard Campaign, General Fund, or Legal Defense Fund by clicking on the following link ->